coding problem or player problem?

Scroll down the list and click on the play button for "Almost there" by
andy williams.
On my end, when it gets to a certain point buffer mode kicks in and for
some reason causes the next song to start.
This is the only item this happens on.
So far.

Advertisements

richard <> wrote in news:eba22yvwafe4$.1p01tmc706j2k.dlg@
40tude.net:
> http://www.1littleworld.net/songs/Asongs.html
>
Of course, you have permission from the copyright holders to put their copyrighted works on
your website, right?

great. Another damned copyright cop.
To have copyright protection, the copyright must be active.
All of the songs written prior to the latest upgrade of the copyrgiht act,
had but a mere 28 years worth of copyright protection.
Most of the songs never applied for an extension.
So therefore, the works are in the "public domain".
Now if my site is infringing, then what about youtube?
practically every song from the sixties is available on youtube.
Then to whom does the actual copyright belong?
And to where does one make a royalty payment?
Specially when the recording company is out of business, or the author has
died.
And just where do you think Amazon.com got all those mp3's for sale?

Before you go mouthing off about violating the copyright law, read it and
understnd it first. I have.

On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 14:42:35 -0700, Evan Platt wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 14:21:20 -0400, richard <>
> wrote:
>
>>great. Another damned copyright cop.
>
> great, another idiot post from bullis claiming he understands
> copyright law.
>
>>To have copyright protection, the copyright must be active.
>>All of the songs written prior to the latest upgrade of the copyrgiht act,
>>had but a mere 28 years worth of copyright protection.
>>Most of the songs never applied for an extension.
>>So therefore, the works are in the "public domain".
>>Now if my site is infringing, then what about youtube?
>>practically every song from the sixties is available on youtube.
>>Then to whom does the actual copyright belong?
>>And to where does one make a royalty payment?
>>Specially when the recording company is out of business, or the author has
>>died.
>>And just where do you think Amazon.com got all those mp3's for sale?
>>
>>Before you go mouthing off about violating the copyright law, read it and
>>understnd it first. I have.
>>
>>STFU Evan.
>
> Type of Work: Music
> Registration Number / Date: RE0000413164 / 1988-12-23
> Renewal registration for: EU0000609004 / 1960-01-15
> Title: About this thing called love. w & m Clyde Norris, Leroy
> Roebuck, Jerry Ragovoy.
> Copyright Claimant: Clyde Norris, Leroy Roebuck, Jerry Ragovoy (A)
>
>
> Need I go on? Or is this where you cower away, tail between legs?

please do go on, I want you to look up every song that appeared on the
billboard charts between 1960 and 1970. Then you can notify you tube,
amazon, and all the other sites that offer pirated music to the public that
they are violating copyright laws.
Not to mention the 10,000 usenet servers worldwide who are obviously
knowingly spreading copyrighted material.

[snip]
>please do go on, I want you to look up every song that appeared on the
>billboard charts between 1960 and 1970. Then you can notify you tube,
>amazon, and all the other sites that offer pirated music to the public that
>they are violating copyright laws.
>Not to mention the 10,000 usenet servers worldwide who are obviously
>knowingly spreading copyrighted material.

Well, no, you should be doing that. If you reproduce material,
it is up to you to check copyright status first.

On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 10:42:35 -0700, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 18:40:49 -0400, richard <>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>please do go on, I want you to look up every song that appeared on the
>>billboard charts between 1960 and 1970. Then you can notify you tube,
>>amazon, and all the other sites that offer pirated music to the public that
>>they are violating copyright laws.
>>Not to mention the 10,000 usenet servers worldwide who are obviously
>>knowingly spreading copyrighted material.
>
> Well, no, you should be doing that. If you reproduce material,
> it is up to you to check copyright status first.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Gene Wirchenko

Do you own a book?
Do you own any audio cd's you legally purchased from a store?
Ok so you have a yard sale and put out your ten thousand books and cd's to
sell.
Question for you mister attorney, did you just violate the copyright law?
No, because you have sold what is legally your property.

The kicker in the copyright law is, the fact that you mass produced copies
and are selling those copies for a profit.

I could go on and on about how wrong you are on copyright.
As most people have no real clues as to what really is involved.

On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:18:24 -0400, richard <>
wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 10:42:35 -0700, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 18:40:49 -0400, richard <>
>> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>please do go on, I want you to look up every song that appeared on the
>>>billboard charts between 1960 and 1970. Then you can notify you tube,
>>>amazon, and all the other sites that offer pirated music to the public that
>>>they are violating copyright laws.
>>>Not to mention the 10,000 usenet servers worldwide who are obviously
>>>knowingly spreading copyrighted material.
>>
>> Well, no, you should be doing that. If you reproduce material,
>> it is up to you to check copyright status first.
>Do you own a book?
>Do you own any audio cd's you legally purchased from a store?
>Ok so you have a yard sale and put out your ten thousand books and cd's to
>sell.
>Question for you mister attorney, did you just violate the copyright law?

I have not cliamed to be an attorney, and in fact, am not one.
>No, because you have sold what is legally your property.

I did not copy anything when I sold said book/CD.
>The kicker in the copyright law is, the fact that you mass produced copies
>and are selling those copies for a profit.

No, one could give away copies for free and be violating
copyright law.
>I could go on and on about how wrong you are on copyright.

And I am sure you will.
>As most people have no real clues as to what really is involved.

That might well include you. Lawyers who deal in IP law might
well be laughing at the both of us. If they are, I suspect that they
are laughing more loudly at you.

Usage rights for music, including copyright, vary quite a bit for
different countries. I am in the US. A few years ago I talked to an
employee of a company that has 3 local radio stations and streams
music and other programs from all 3 online. He said that they use a
company to stream all three and that takes care of all of the paper
work needed for rights. For example, they have to keep track of how
many times each song is played online and what the needed payments
are. For example, depending on age and other factors, fees may be due
for the composition, for the instrumental and vocal artists, for
possible revised versions of the music, for the owners of the music,
etc. Since all of this would require too much work for small to medium
sized media companies, many use such a service. This all very tricky.
For example, one might think music recorded in the late 1900s would
surely be free from usage fees, but that may not be the case! For
example, there have been many transfers of very old music to CD or LP,
and the company releasing this music may be due usage fees because
this is a new version of the music that has been restored. If a
streaming radio services does not handle the payment of usage fees
properly, they very likely will be sued.

For private web sites that do not sell things including music for
profit, the same usage rights often apply. What can happen here, is
that a rights owner can complain to the owner of the server being used
for the music. The owner of the server or isp can then take down the
music at once and not be held liable for any usage rights. There is an
appeal process for the owner of the web page to prove that the music
is not subject to usage rights fees. There is so much music on the web
that this may not happen very often for low traffic private sites that
do not offer music sales or free downloads of the music. However in
the past going back to midi days, a few lawyers have searched the web
for music with rights not paid. When they find such a page, they then
go to the owner of the rights and offer to sue, for a fee of course,
The owner of the page likely will be sued in federal court in the
Hollywood area. This could be very inconvenient and costly for the
page owner. However the lawyer also likely will quote a large fee for
dropping the matter. A review of credit rating company reports of the
page owner will allow the lawyer to determine the maximum amount the
page owner can pay.

On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 13:47:20 -0700 (PDT), cwdjrxyz wrote:
> On Apr 22, 12:27 pm, Doug Miller <>
> wrote:
>> richard <> wrote in news:eba22yvwafe4$.1p01tmc706j2k.dlg@
>> 40tude.net:
>>
>>>http://www.1littleworld.net/songs/Asongs.html
>>
>> Of course, you have permission from the copyright holders to put their copyrighted works on
>> your website, right?
>
> Usage rights for music, including copyright, vary quite a bit for
> different countries. I am in the US. A few years ago I talked to an
> employee of a company that has 3 local radio stations and streams
> music and other programs from all 3 online. He said that they use a
> company to stream all three and that takes care of all of the paper
> work needed for rights. For example, they have to keep track of how
> many times each song is played online and what the needed payments
> are. For example, depending on age and other factors, fees may be due
> for the composition, for the instrumental and vocal artists, for
> possible revised versions of the music, for the owners of the music,
> etc. Since all of this would require too much work for small to medium
> sized media companies, many use such a service. This all very tricky.
> For example, one might think music recorded in the late 1900s would
> surely be free from usage fees, but that may not be the case! For
> example, there have been many transfers of very old music to CD or LP,
> and the company releasing this music may be due usage fees because
> this is a new version of the music that has been restored. If a
> streaming radio services does not handle the payment of usage fees
> properly, they very likely will be sued.
>
> For private web sites that do not sell things including music for
> profit, the same usage rights often apply. What can happen here, is
> that a rights owner can complain to the owner of the server being used
> for the music. The owner of the server or isp can then take down the
> music at once and not be held liable for any usage rights. There is an
> appeal process for the owner of the web page to prove that the music
> is not subject to usage rights fees. There is so much music on the web
> that this may not happen very often for low traffic private sites that
> do not offer music sales or free downloads of the music. However in
> the past going back to midi days, a few lawyers have searched the web
> for music with rights not paid. When they find such a page, they then
> go to the owner of the rights and offer to sue, for a fee of course,
> The owner of the page likely will be sued in federal court in the
> Hollywood area. This could be very inconvenient and costly for the
> page owner. However the lawyer also likely will quote a large fee for
> dropping the matter. A review of credit rating company reports of the
> page owner will allow the lawyer to determine the maximum amount the
> page owner can pay.

yeah yeah. Hvae you ever heard of blackmail and extortion?
One day you get a letter in the mail which states that legal action will be
taken if you fail to pay xyz law firm $10,000 for the rights to use the
music online.
That, my friend, is extortion.

Extort:
ex·tort
1. Law .
a.
to wrest or wring (money, information, etc.) from a person by violence,
intimidation, or abuse of authority; obtain by force, torture, threat, or
the like.
b.
to take illegally by reason of one's office.
2.
to compel (something) of a person or thing: Her wit and intelligence
extorted their admiration.

This is what the RIAA does. You get threatened with court action if you do
not pay. Sorry charlie, but I don't take threats likely. I will see your
ass in court. I will have the sheriff of your county come knocking on your
door and serve you with a warrant for extortion.

Do you use a library? Does a library pay the author of a work for keeping
his book on the shelf? Then make a payment when somebody takes it out?
I don't think so.

Why does youtube get away with hosting the same music online?
I got some of my mp3's from youtube.
You go into a store, and the store is playing a cd they have to offer for
sale. Are they going to pay a fee for doing so? I don't think so.

Now on my site, all I do is show the visitor what I have available.
I do not charge a dime. I do not stream. It is up to the visitor and make
the choice if he wants to listen to the music or not.
If they want to download, they can. For free.

Now let's say that I have a certain song on my site.
The recording company has since gone to the recycle bin.
Even though the work was renewed in 1988 (e.g), the author or copyright
owner is nowhere to be found.
Now to whom do I make payments?
And no, I'm not about to pay "per usage" either.

In the documentary movie about "Glenn Miller", the military badnleader,
there was a line I recall:
"Yeah dad, it's been good. We've sold two million copies and I get a nickel
for each sale."
"A nickel? Hell, thats a hundred thousand dollars!"

No, radio stations did not pay a dime because they aired the recording.
Artists get paid by the sales of the recording, not air time, or usage.

In my opinion, if a company is forcing a streaming radio station to keep
track of air play and pay accordingly, they are ripping off not only the
station, but the artist. As I'll bet not one dime of that money ever goes
to the artist.

On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 13:10:39 -0700, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:18:24 -0400, richard <>
> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 10:42:35 -0700, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 18:40:49 -0400, richard <>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>>please do go on, I want you to look up every song that appeared on the
>>>>billboard charts between 1960 and 1970. Then you can notify you tube,
>>>>amazon, and all the other sites that offer pirated music to the public that
>>>>they are violating copyright laws.
>>>>Not to mention the 10,000 usenet servers worldwide who are obviously
>>>>knowingly spreading copyrighted material.
>>>
>>> Well, no, you should be doing that. If you reproduce material,
>>> it is up to you to check copyright status first.
>
>>Do you own a book?
>>Do you own any audio cd's you legally purchased from a store?
>>Ok so you have a yard sale and put out your ten thousand books and cd's to
>>sell.
>>Question for you mister attorney, did you just violate the copyright law?
>
> I have not cliamed to be an attorney, and in fact, am not one.
>
>>No, because you have sold what is legally your property.
>
> I did not copy anything when I sold said book/CD.
>
>>The kicker in the copyright law is, the fact that you mass produced copies
>>and are selling those copies for a profit.
>
> No, one could give away copies for free and be violating
> copyright law.

BINGO!
Give that man a ceegar!
This is now contradicting what you've said earlier. That the simple act of
having said material online is a violation.

richard <> wrote in news:14prypcv20kes$.y5dhtqfnynnn.dlg@
40tude.net:
>
> yeah yeah. Hvae you ever heard of blackmail and extortion?
> One day you get a letter in the mail which states that legal action will be
> taken if you fail to pay xyz law firm $10,000 for the rights to use the
> music online.
> That, my friend, is extortion.

No, RtD, it's not. It's the penalty for violation of another's rights under the copyright law.

richard <> wrote in news:8atqcwdh3t9i$.cxtlddc2egj7.dlg@
40tude.net:
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 13:10:39 -0700, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:18:24 -0400, richard <>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 10:42:35 -0700, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 18:40:49 -0400, richard <>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>>>please do go on, I want you to look up every song that appeared on the
>>>>>billboard charts between 1960 and 1970. Then you can notify you tube,
>>>>>amazon, and all the other sites that offer pirated music to the public that
>>>>>they are violating copyright laws.
>>>>>Not to mention the 10,000 usenet servers worldwide who are obviously
>>>>>knowingly spreading copyrighted material.
>>>>
>>>> Well, no, you should be doing that. If you reproduce material,
>>>> it is up to you to check copyright status first.
>>
>>>Do you own a book?
>>>Do you own any audio cd's you legally purchased from a store?
>>>Ok so you have a yard sale and put out your ten thousand books and cd's to
>>>sell.
>>>Question for you mister attorney, did you just violate the copyright law?
>>
>> I have not cliamed to be an attorney, and in fact, am not one.
>>
>>>No, because you have sold what is legally your property.
>>
>> I did not copy anything when I sold said book/CD.
>>
>>>The kicker in the copyright law is, the fact that you mass produced copies
>>>and are selling those copies for a profit.
>>
>> No, one could give away copies for free and be violating
>> copyright law.
>
> BINGO!
> Give that man a ceegar!
> This is now contradicting what you've said earlier. That the simple act of
> having said material online is a violation.

Read it again, RtD. I think you missed the comma after the word "No".

He is absolutely right, and there is no contradiction: you *are* violating copyright law by
giving away copies of something to which someone else owns the rights.

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 11:11:20 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller wrote:
> richard <> wrote in news:14prypcv20kes$.y5dhtqfnynnn.dlg@
> 40tude.net:
>
>>
>> yeah yeah. Hvae you ever heard of blackmail and extortion?
>> One day you get a letter in the mail which states that legal action will be
>> taken if you fail to pay xyz law firm $10,000 for the rights to use the
>> music online.
>> That, my friend, is extortion.
>
> No, RtD, it's not. It's the penalty for violation of another's rights under the copyright law.

richard <> wrote in newsm62t4mr2agv.ye37m0gj8c37.dlg@
40tude.net:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 11:11:20 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller wrote:
>
>> richard <> wrote in news:14prypcv20kes$.y5dhtqfnynnn.dlg@
>> 40tude.net:
>>
>>>
>>> yeah yeah. Hvae you ever heard of blackmail and extortion?
>>> One day you get a letter in the mail which states that legal action will be
>>> taken if you fail to pay xyz law firm $10,000 for the rights to use the
>>> music online.
>>> That, my friend, is extortion.
>>
>> No, RtD, it's not. It's the penalty for violation of another's rights under the copyright law.
>
> I praise thee kind sire by clicking my heels twice, raising my hand and
> pointing it to the sun and shouting with strength, "Sieg Heil! Seig Heil
> Meinen Fuhrer!".

Share This Page

Welcome to The Coding Forums!

Welcome to the Coding Forums, the place to chat about anything related to programming and coding languages.

Please join our friendly community by clicking the button below - it only takes a few seconds and is totally free. You'll be able to ask questions about coding or chat with the community and help others.
Sign up now!